Teaching moves vs. teaching positions

[El Salsero Gringo]

It struck me in a class last night that while the teacher goes through some fairly long and complicated moves ("...on the count of 37, the lady steps back with her fingers in your ears...") what one's *body* actually learns is a set of distinct body positions and how to transition between them. Most of the moves share the same basic wraps, holds, pushes and pulls and so on.

More importantly it's the same leads that are used to get between the different positions.

When I dance I'm not bothered about the name of the move or the four positions it involves - I simply know that I've learnt (say) five different exits from the wrap I just happen to be in and pick the one that seems to suit the music best at that moment. Goodness only knows from which move I learn't it but it doesn't make any difference to my partner as long as I can lead it.

So I think the teaching of intermediate level Ceroc (MJ?) would be improved if attention was paid to teaching much smaller "elements" of moves - individually led transitions between positions - and how those leads work. That should be backed up with advice on how to string these transions together to match the music rather than continue the pretence that if you can't remember what happens on beat 17 of the 'double cappucino arm-break seducer" you clearly aren't a man in any meaningful sense.

Does anyone agree?

[Andy McGregor]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

if you can't remember what happens on beat 17 of the 'double cappucino arm-break seducer" you clearly aren't a man in any meaningful sense.

Ahh, beat 17 is the really important beat for your manhood. C**k that up and you may end up with a surprise vasectomy

But, on topic for a moment. This is the teaching moves vs teaching technique debate. IMHO teaching technique produces better dancers but poorer organisers because it takes ages to develop good technique and people will drop out at an alarming rate. Teaching moves means you can be dancing by the end of your first night and come back to become twice as good the following week

[El Salsero Gringo]

Bad etiquette, I know, to jump back into your own thread so soon, but I don't think it *is* a debate about technique vs. moves:

It is (well, it was intended) to be about moves vs. 'pieces of moves'. I don't think the teaching would have to change that much, because obviously the pieces of moves have to be put together in a class - but I would like to see some emphasis, for instance on alternative exits and entrances into the middle of moves during the class.

I do think teaching moves is entirely appropriate for the beginners class, for the reason that you pointed out.

[Andy McGregor]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

It is (well, it was intended) to be about moves vs. 'pieces of moves'. I don't think the teaching would have to change that much, because obviously the pieces of moves have to be put together in a class - but I would like to see some emphasis, for instance on alternative exits and entrances into the middle of moves during the class.

The more I do modern jive the simpler it becomes (or the simpler I become) to me. I think El Gringo has a point about the 'pieces of moves'. I suppose they're like the vocabulary of dance. And just like words they can be assembled in different ways to produce a very different result. But I'm not sure that the teacher can offer variations from the stage so that different dancers are dancing different routines. But this kind of thing could be, and probably is, taught at workshops.

[Gadget]

Spooky: I just spent last night typing up notes for an "on-line workshop" dealing with this very thing... Once it's a bit more polished I'll put it on the forum.

[MartinHarper]

Lindy has moves that are mostly six or eight beats long (three or four jive counts), but don't all start and end in the same position. Thus, an MJ "first move" is very roughly equivalent to three Lindy moves:
1. Gather in (six beats, starts open position, ends side-by-side)
2. Send out (six beats, starts side-by-side, ends open position)
3. Arch (six beats, starts open position, ends open position)

Personally, I find this helpful, but others might not.

[Andy McGregor]

Originally Posted by MartinHarper

Lindy has moves that are mostly six or eight beats long (three or four jive counts), but don't all start and end in the same position. Thus, an MJ "first move" is very roughly equivalent to three Lindy moves:
1. Gather in (six beats, starts open position, ends side-by-side)
2. Send out (six beats, starts side-by-side, ends open position)
3. Arch (six beats, starts open position, ends open position)

Personally, I find this helpful, but others might not.

My own opinion about Lindy Hop is that it's not Modern Jive. There seems to be a school of thought, mostly among Modern Jivers that do Lindy Hop, that you graduate to Lindy Hop. That it's a more serious dance for serious dancers. There is no doubt in my mind that it's a more difficult dance. Another thing that's clear in my mind is that it's not Modern Jive and is not a better dance than Modern Jive - it's just a different dance. Some people seem to think that they are better than Modern Jivers because they do Lindy Hop. This is not the case. You do Lindy Hop to different music and I therefore believe that it should be done on a different dance floor.

Therefore, I believe that any discussion about improving Modern Jive does not benefit from discussion about how to do Lindy Hop. Although there may be circumstances where there are common learnings I believe they are embellishments, not the meat of the matter.

[philsmove]

So I think the teaching of intermediate level Ceroc (MJ?) would be improved if attention was paid to teaching much smaller "elements" of moves - individually led transitions between positions - and how those leads work. That should be backed up with advice on how to string these transions together to match the music rather than continue the pretence that if you can't remember what happens on beat 17

I could not agree more

Lots of Rep on its way

But as a cynical friend once said

“If they really taught us how to dance .. and if we really learnt how to dance ….we would stop coming to their lessons “

[bigdjiver]

When we learn language we first learn words, then how to assemble them into sentences. It is only when we come to learn to read and write we are taught the letters and common combinations and how to put them together to make the words.

It may be possible to start teaching a baby the alphabet, and develop language from there, but I do not think it worth trying.

We are taught Mj in much the same way as we learn to walk. We see others doing it, and lurch around in a similar fashion as seems natural to us, and then go on to develop our own style.

Where thinking of the dance in terms of positions and transitions might make more sense to most of us is to slower music, such as in blues dancing, where I find the "moves" culture derived from MJ a drawback. Alas, this is just theory, I have not had sufficient blues experience to play with the idea.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

Does anyone agree?

Absolutely!

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

...I would like to see some emphasis, for instance on alternative exits and entrances into the middle of moves during the class.

Just because they are not pointed out to you, does not mean you can't find them yourself - the teacher even counts out the posible 'nodes' that variables can branch from. It just needs a little twist of perspecive...

The beginner's moves show you about 80% of the movements you will ever see on the dance floor and are selected because of this - each has one or two 'core' positions in it and a couple of key movement ideas.

Take the basket for example:
- The 'core' position in the basket is that the lady is wrapped in to your side.
- You learn...
-- both hands can be used to lead the lady
-- you can stop the lady so she turns 180 degrees instead of a full 360
-- you can nudge out with the fore-arm; not all leads have to be from the hands
-- it's a bounce-reverse move; the motion is blocked and the lady is returned allong the same path she entered on

Now you have these concepts and ideas, you can apply them to other moves for example the yo-yo:
- The core position for this is the arm folded accross the chest and the flat-hand block
Applying the above concepts to these positions:
- both hands; If in a crossed hold, the yo-yo can still work; the left hand is only holding the lasy's left, not leading the move.
- stopping the lady; well, she already stops at the flat-hand.
- non-hand lead; on the extension, the bk of the hand is used and some of the fore-arm, on the block, make sure that your elbow is slightly inside, and the whole of the fore-arm takes the block rather than just the hand.
- bounce-reverse; you could, instead of using the block to turn the lady, lead the move back where it started:from the palm-palm hold, lead down to the left and back up to your shoulder as you turn your back on your partner and draw her to your right side.

I could turn it round and see what yo-yo concepts could be applied to that basket, or the man spin, or first move, or any other basic move you care to mention. If you look even closer, the moves made up of movements which are just methods of getting from one position to another. These positions, and movements the teachers kindly show us on every 'count'. (This is the heart of the text I'm creating - so more on it later.)

The basic moves contain all the basic elements and concepts you will use on the dance floor. Sure, think on the "intermedite" moves as moves, but if you take time to look at what the 'basic' moves can teach you, they become more advanced than the majority of 'intermediate' moves.

{well, I think so anyway }